Author Topic: TPiR Season 37 changes (Read 70729 times)

TroubadourNando · « **Reply #255 on:** August 21, 2008, 07:20:34 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194766\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 05:44 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194762\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 05:10 PM\']Now, another question for the Price experts: can I *refuse* a prize outright? If I win that gazebo, can I say "No, screw it, keep it" and therefore not take on the tax liability? Because if so, then Joe's argument instantly becomes 137% more valid.[/quote]
Never played TPIR, but in general yes, of course, they can't make you take a prize. However, there's not a lot of time to think it through. If it's anything like my experience (twice), you're signing something right after the show that says whether or not you accept the prize(s).
[/quote]

Random aside: don't some shows offer a cash substitute of some value (not always equal) if you don't want the prize(s)? This is probably just Let's Make A Deal's stipulations about refusing Zonks confusing me, but still...

The Pyramids · « **Reply #256 on:** August 21, 2008, 07:35:18 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194766\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 04:44 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194762\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 05:10 PM\']Now, another question for the Price experts: can I *refuse* a prize outright? If I win that gazebo, can I say "No, screw it, keep it" and therefore not take on the tax liability? Because if so, then Joe's argument instantly becomes 137% more valid.[/quote]
Never played TPIR, but in general yes, of course, they can't make you take a prize. However, there's not a lot of time to think it through. If it's anything like my experience (twice), you're signing something right after the show that says whether or not you accept the prize(s).
[/quote]

I believe Stan Blits mentioned in passing in his book last year that some contestants can and do pass on their prizes.

clemon79 · « **Reply #257 on:** August 21, 2008, 08:24:40 PM »

[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'194765\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 02:42 PM\']
If nothing else, you can refuse the other two and just take that pinball machine you've always had your eye on (or know you can resell for three grand).[/quote]
Absolutely. But I would burn in a firey hell with nothing but an iPod full of Judy Tenuta bits before reselling that pinball machine.

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194766\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 02:44 PM\']
However, there's not a lot of time to think it through. If it's anything like my experience (twice), you're signing something right after the show that says whether or not you accept the prize(s).[/quote]
Sure, but it's a pretty big no-brainer to figure out that I'm not putting an above-ground swimming pool in my apartment.

I was just confirming that I can pick and choose as to what prizes I would actually like to keep.

TLEberle · « **Reply #258 on:** August 21, 2008, 09:29:09 PM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194735\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:10 AM\']YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME![/quote]"Two million dollars, Drew." (Yeah, I realize that was from Contestant's Row, and not onstage, but the point still holds: that a contestant chose to repeatedly pass up his chance to get onstage because he'd rather do his shtick.)

As much as it might bother some, TPIR has become an hour-long theme park ride with a three day long line to get in. People are crazy-happy just to be called to Contestant's Row, and pricing game losers say "I still get to spin the wheel!" even if they lost a car. It's less about playing the game, and more the experience of the show, and being part of the institution. Showcase winners who have won roomfuls of furniture squeal with delight because they won, not because of what they won.

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194740\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:32 AM\']For the purposes of continuing this thread civilly, any more references to "asshat" or any permutation of "fanboy" will be dealt with harshly.[/quote]This brings to mind a town meeting whose origin I can't recall, but they were discussion the invasion of multinational corporations that kicked out "small town businesses." The meeting leaders declared it against the rules to name "Wal*Mart" or to say "big box stores." (So much for free speech.) Shall I call the more voracious fans "special friends of the show," even though we all know what I mean?

The problem isn't one of nomenclature at all. There isn't a spectrum, where someone on the left hasn't ever heard of the show, and those on the right have all the tapes, the memorabilia, has been umpteen times, records the show and the statistics, to the point where it invades the person's life uncontrollably. It's possible to enjoy the show for what it is, an exciting hour of giving away stuff. It's possible to enjoy the show in dissecting the games, knowing what is played where, in what order, for what prizes, and how often. And it's possible to enjoy the show without being a total nutcase.

I really don't like it when I try to inject something of substance into the discussion, and get completely dismissed as someone who can't handle change. I should be able to say "Golly, I liked it the old way" without having the OH NOES! CHANGE!! meme whipped out right away.

/Liked the old Punch-a-Bunch reveal with the turntable and the big "$10,000" sign, for one.
//And yet I still get eight hours of sleep per night.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #259 on:** August 21, 2008, 09:38:00 PM »

[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194774\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 07:20 PM\']Random aside: don't some shows offer a cash substitute of some value (not always equal) if you don't want the prize(s)? This is probably just Let's Make A Deal's stipulations about refusing Zonks confusing me, but still...[/quote]
In general, don't go expecting a cash substitute. The show would have to have a reason of its own not to want to deliver on the prize you won. Usually, that would be because it was a gag prize. Not only LMAD, but the original Bill Cullen TPIR offered silly prizes on camera, with a cash substitute, sometimes a hefty one, usually ready after the show. There's a famous story (Bob Stewart is still in the middle of telling it at the Beverly Garland hotel...) about a player on TPIR winning an elephant and refusing the $4000 cash offer.

But on today's TPIR, if you don't want a prize, they're not going to buy it back from you at ANY price. There's just no reason for them to do that.

TLEberle · « **Reply #260 on:** August 21, 2008, 09:43:33 PM »

Where's my elephant? WHERE'S MY ELEPHANT?

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #261 on:** August 21, 2008, 09:55:05 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194781\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:29 PM\']
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'194735\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:10 AM\']YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME![/quote]"Two million dollars, Drew." (Yeah, I realize that was from Contestant's Row, and not onstage, but the point still holds: that a contestant chose to repeatedly pass up his chance to get onstage because he'd rather do his shtick.)[/quote]
But the sort of person you're talking about here is going to do his thing no matter what the rules to Make Your Mark are. The real questions seem to be 1) how many people won't play this game because they've got $500 in their pocket and that's plenty, and 2) how important that really is. I personally think the answers are "not many" and "not much" for the reasons I stated earlier.

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'194781\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:29 PM\']This brings to mind a town meeting whose origin I can't recall, but they were discussion the invasion of multinational corporations that kicked out "small town businesses." The meeting leaders declared it against the rules to name "Wal*Mart" or to say "big box stores." (So much for free speech.) Shall I call the more voracious fans "special friends of the show," even though we all know what I mean?[/quote]
There's a monumental difference between some weird Orwellian effort to manipulate language and telling people who have already used derogatory comments to knock it off. What I'm saying is that you can make your point without using disparaging terms.

Besides, your story reeks of "urban legend".

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #262 on:** August 21, 2008, 10:04:30 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194760\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 04:46 PM\']As I understand it, I don't really see how this is any different than Spelling Bee (where you're given two cards outright) or Temptation, two games that give you something for nothing, and then let you either keep it or risk it for something bigger. In both cases, if you walk away, you've done absolutely nothing to earn what you get. And in both those cases, they give you a lot more than $500.[/quote]
One difference here, I believe, is that to continue playing either Spelling Bee or Temptation, you must gradually give up all of your consolation (in the former) or risk immediately giving up all of your consolation (in the latter). In the new Make Your Mark, leaving the last marker alone now lets you proceed to the "end" of the game without risking your "lesser" prize.

I actually agree with Steve et al.'s reasoning that this skews the game a bit (a BIT) towards being less interesting . . . but I disagree that there's going to be a rash of contestants ignoring the game and clutching their $500. Most of the time, there's going to be at least one interesting prize, and even when there's not, I've seen a lot of contestants put a lot of effort into winning (for instance) an electric car that they obviously are not dying to own.

I also agree that making a lot of little changes at once is not the most heartening news for any game show . . . but, you know, life goes on. I thought Donnymid made a mess of the Winner's Circle, my favorite game show segment ever, but it was never worth getting seriously riled over.

Finally, it would not shock me if this particular change was actually due to the potential (or actual) aggravation of a losing contestant complaining that "you gave me $500, you let me keep it, you can't take it back now!" Barker certainly failed to explain that clearly on enough occasions.

TroubadourNando · « **Reply #263 on:** August 21, 2008, 10:04:58 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'194782\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 09:38 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194774\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 07:20 PM\']Random aside: don't some shows offer a cash substitute of some value (not always equal) if you don't want the prize(s)? This is probably just Let's Make A Deal's stipulations about refusing Zonks confusing me, but still...[/quote]
In general, don't go expecting a cash substitute. The show would have to have a reason of its own not to want to deliver on the prize you won. Usually, that would be because it was a gag prize. Not only LMAD, but the original Bill Cullen TPIR offered silly prizes on camera, with a cash substitute, sometimes a hefty one, usually ready after the show. There's a famous story (Bob Stewart is still in the middle of telling it at the Beverly Garland hotel...) about a player on TPIR winning an elephant and refusing the $4000 cash offer.

But on today's TPIR, if you don't want a prize, they're not going to buy it back from you at ANY price. There's just no reason for them to do that.
[/quote]

That was pretty much what I thought. Thanks.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #264 on:** August 21, 2008, 10:14:59 PM »

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194785\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 10:04 PM\']
One difference here, I believe, is that to continue playing either Spelling Bee or Temptation, you must gradually give up all of your consolation (in the former) or risk immediately giving up all of your consolation (in the latter). In the new Make Your Mark, leaving the last marker alone now lets you proceed to the "end" of the game without risking your "lesser" prize.[/quote]
This is what I've been trying to get someone to explain to me for at least three pages now.

So, the new deal is that if you have $500 and you don't want to switch, even if you're wrong, you still get to keep the $500. Whereas before, if you didn't switch and you were wrong, you lost everything including the $500. OK, I can see how this falls a little more clearly into the "money for nothing" column, but I really don't see how as a result of this pretty subtle change, we're going to get a rash of people who just don't care, or who would lose on purpose. In fact, I don't see the latter at all.

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #265 on:** August 21, 2008, 10:18:01 PM »

The way I understand things -- and I could be wrong, but I'm confident enough that I'm not to risk putting my foot in my mouth -- the new rules state that if you leave the third marker where it is and lose, you still win the $500, whereas before, you wouldn't have won anything.

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'194762\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 05:10 PM\']Now, another question for the Price experts: can I *refuse* a prize outright? If I win that gazebo, can I say "No, screw it, keep it" and therefore not take on the tax liability?[/quote]
Yes, you can...but if even you had to ask about it, I don't think the odds of your average contestant thinking of it in the middle of their game are all that great.

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'194785\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 10:04 PM\']I actually agree with Steve et al.'s reasoning that this skews the game a bit (a BIT) towards being less interesting . . . but I disagree that there's going to be a rash of contestants ignoring the game and clutching their $500.[/quote]
That's very true. But the fact remains that they took a format that wasn't broken and...well...broke it, and I have a feeling the change was probably made without anyone involved in the decision even realizing that fact. Regardless of how likely it is to actually occur, I don't see why we should be in favor of changes like this that weaken a solid set of rules.

clemon79 · « **Reply #266 on:** August 21, 2008, 10:26:56 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194788\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 07:18 PM\']
The way I understand things -- and I could be wrong, but I'm confident enough that I'm not to risk putting my foot in my mouth -- the new rules state that if you leave the third marker where it is and lose, you still win the $500, whereas before, you wouldn't have won anything.[/quote]
Then I did understand it from the get-go, and I stand by all of my previous statements.

Quote

Yes, you can...but if even you had to ask about it, I don't think the odds of your average contestant thinking of it in the middle of their game are all that great.

I agree. But then I don't think the average Price contestant is going to think one second about tax liabilities until they find out the hard way. Which means they're not gonna tank their game either.

Quote

But the fact remains that they took a format that wasn't broken and...well...broke it,

This is not fact, this is opinion. Specifically, your opinion that this change is "broken" when I think a lot of people around here happen to feel quite the opposite way, and I personally have yet to see an argument that changes my mind about that.

Quote

I don't see why we should be in favor of changes like this that weaken a solid set of rules.

I don't see where it weakens the rules. At all. At. All.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #267 on:** August 21, 2008, 11:02:17 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'194788\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 10:18 PM\']That's very true. But the fact remains that they took a format that wasn't broken and...well...broke it, and I have a feeling the change was probably made without anyone involved in the decision even realizing that fact. [/quote]
Except that I can very easily see the logic behind the idea that you "pay" to change the marker, and if you choose NOT to "pay" to change the marker, then you "keep" the money. That makes sense.

We've started dropping "broken" around here the same way people drop "jump the shark" because it sounds like a nice phrase. I'd say they took something that wasn't broken and...just changed it. I'd even go so far as to say it's an arbitrary change for a game that didn't really need to be changed. But if this "new" rule was how the game premiered, I don't think I'd look at it and say it was a broken game.

TroubadourNando · « **Reply #268 on:** August 21, 2008, 11:05:55 PM »

Matt O. nailed it. Bad? No. Trivial? Very.

I just wish I knew what prompted it.

TheLastResort · « **Reply #269 on:** August 21, 2008, 11:16:12 PM »

[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'194791\' date=\'Aug 21 2008, 11:05 PM\']I just wish I knew what prompted it.[/quote]

Sounds like a Drew Carey thing. Word is it was his idea to award $500 per correct answer during Half Off.